Talk:Time Cube/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 →

Contents

Time Cube Guy

For those of us that have argued with Time Cube Guy and wondered whether he's serious or just trolling, he now has a video of himself on his website: [1]

Judge for yourself. At the very least its interesting to finally see and hear the guy who was once causing so much trouble here. Cheradenine 05:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

How do we know it's Time Cube Guy? Besides that... I think I just got a bit more confused as to whether or not this guy is serious. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 17:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I am pretty sure it's the same guy. He has been active for years on various Time Cube forums...I can't think of anyone else who has gone to such length to comprehend Time Cube.King Mob 18:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I see that Cheradenine has visited the [spam removed]. This version includes a [spam removed]. Kosebamse has already expressed a desire to suppress this new website—for as we all know, Time Cube is ineffable truth.

Personally, I think his accent is a mix of australian and disabled, but I only think that because I've personally dealt with Cubehead and he's a heavily bias hypocrit. I reiterate that that is a completely personal opinion. All I want now is just pure, hardcore fact, not ineffable truth. Plus, if it were ineffable truth, would it be not only a lost truth, but an impossible truth because the truth would have to be discovered, from scratch, by each person seperately? Serious question. Maybe timecube is just the realization that other people live on this planet, which just so happens to rotate? --Duckmurderer 08:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Having met Time Cube Guy in person (assuming that he is the maintainer of the site that he links to), it's still hard to say whether it's a mix of Australian and disabled or simply Australian and shy. Anyway if any of you are interested in speaking about him by name rather than by title, he is -- and he is enroled in the same university course as my sister. She states that she has seen him damage university property repeatedly and that he regularly convulses during class. This may all be simply a cry for attention, but it's not my place to say whether he's actually ill. --202.164.194.254 09:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If he's having convulsions during class, and it's just for attention, maybe he's the mental one and not Mr. Ray o.O Duckmurderer 04:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Reality Check? (and not necessarily a 4-sided one)

I hope that we can somehow get down to the rational truth here: that the Time Cube Theory is utter anti-human insanity and its proponents are a wacko group. Not only is the theory filled with extreme hatred, extreme condemnation, racism, and 100% baseless math (-1 x -1 = +1, get over it. Pi = ~3.14 and cannot be 3.20, less it isn't actually a circle, get the heck over it. One day is one day. IOr have you just gone cookoo?), the fact that I disagree in any way and support altruism and actual science makes apparently makes me stupid, evil, and not fit to exist. It saddens me that a portion of humanity has reached this valley of depravity and delusion. It makes scientology seem reasonable by any comparison... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.64.66.206 (talk • contribs) 9 August, 2006

Scientology are you serious? Scientology is the true definition of a cult i.e you must be a member and pay alot of money before you ever learn "the mighty truth about how aliens created you". 83.91.171.243 02:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
And Time Cube is actually the ultimate salvation for humanity: a salvation for nihilism. The 1-corner science and maths of Academia is death-thought, and dooms humanity to a hell. Time Cube is rationally proven to be the truth of the universe. What you should do is take your altruism, and extend it to the redemption of humanity: a Cubic redemption, achieved through knowledge of Time Cube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.186.1.196 (talk • contribs) 23 August, 2006
No, Time Cube has not been "rationally proven", you and Gene Ray are the only people who believe it, and I'm not sure about Gene. You seem to object to "1-corner maths" even though they work and have done for all time -- indeed, your opinions at Graveyard of the Gods imply you think we shouldn't use maths for practical things at all, and that we should just "do" things instead of calculating them. The rest is just offensive pseudo-racist spiel (and note that if you define one "corner" of Earth to be for whites, and make that "midday", you've now done the equivalent of Greenwich Mean Time, unless you really do want everyone to keep running around the world).
So sorry, but I haven't seen a single reason to regard Time Cube as anything other than a very minor cult, and that's how the article should stay. And please be aware that badgering people and refusing to engage in sensible discussion will not convert anyone to your cause. Dave-ros 12:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Well I am fully sensible. So here are the responses to your points.
Gene Ray said in his radio interviews: "Midday to midday's a light race day." So it was not midday alone, but the whole 4 corners, merely beginning and ending at midday.
Now the Superman would have the ability to intuitively accomplish things, rather than relying on inhuman technology and volumes of mathematical literature. The human genome contains enough information to construct an entire biological human individual, yet instead of encoding higher wisdom into that same genome, humans insist on encoding it into a WordViral menome, and granting technology inordinate powers. We must restore power to the biological realm to avoid usurpation of power by pseudo-sentient, quasi-intelligent synthetic machinery. The human genome has how many Gb of data in it? Scientific research showed that some of it currently contains junk data that is random noise and holds no content, so we wouldn't even need to evolve into a new species: we merely encode some new information in the place of that junk data.
Time Cube is indeed proven. I suggest you check out the CubicAO enumerated proof. It has been made very clear and perspicuous, so that humans such as yourself will have no difficulty in learning of the Cubic truth.
Far from being a "minor cult" as you claim, Time Cube is the ineffable truth of the universe. You must seek Time Cube.
Ineffable means you can't explain it properly to other people, so stop contradicting yourself by saying it's "rationally proven" on your website. At least you're finally admitting the Luddite undercurrent in your writings -- in fact, combined with all this talk about storing information in human DNA, it almost seems you're talking about the Dune universe... are you or Gene Ray planning a Butlerian Jihad? Dave-ros 12:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Nah, Dr Ray explained it by saying that everything you say has an opposite. So if I say that Time Cube is true, you would say that it's false. Hence, the imperfection of word, and the consequent ineffability of Time Cube. We can express Time Cube with words, but only in imperfect fashion.
The Academians are luddites for clinging to false outmoded beliefs, and not accepting Time Cube. They support the technological state, not recognising its deleterious effects and that it must be superseded by Time Cube.
But Time Cube doesn't actually do anything! Dave-ros 18:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that's very relevent. Looking at the article, there's no description of how Time Cube can make people's lives better if its true. People don't like 'conventional' science because it's true, but because it's useful. Assuming that someone sees utility in Time Cube it would be great to have it explained to us. If it's not useful, it doesn't matter if it's true or not. Pdarley 02:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Look, after checking out the archives, I've decided that no informed, logical mathematical or physical critique of time cube can convince timecubeguy that time cube is wrong. If there was a rational philosophical argument against time cube he could refute it by saying that it's opposite was also true or that you could (tautologically) say that it is not not itself or something. "Dr" Ray has no evidence. "Dr" Ray has no applications for his theory. "Dr" Ray is not a doctor, or a professor, or an academic. I suspect that that this is the one and only big thing in his life, and as a fanatic he has nothing better to do than waste contributors' time on this subject. I would suggest that no-one respond to unsigned posts on this page (as I unfortunately already have done) --Markjohndaley 12:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Official" forum

The forum we link to (http://www.graveyardofthegods.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=21) and describe as "official" seems nothing more than links to shock sites and trolling and who is to say it is official? Did Gene Ray endorse it? I think it should be removed. WikianJim 11:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's the official forum endorsed by Time Cube Guy/--, and promoted by him on his Time Cube fansite. As much of a devotee as -- is, the forum is not official at all, not promoted by Ray anywhere that I can see, and should be removed. --202.164.194.254 12:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the "official" tag, but probably the link should stay. A quick look shows the forum has a lot of junk, but there is a bit of real discussion going on. There isn't anywhere else on the web these things are discussed, so I think it is a useful resource nontheless. WikianJim Some time in August 2006
Now I've taken another look the forum seems to have gone downhill a bit and the junk has taken over. Everyone there seems to think Time Cube Guy is a fake, and almost every thread is dominated by the speculation. Some of the posters are funny, but IMO there isn't really any useful information there. Anyone object to removing the link? WikianJim 08:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, the junk is now even worse. It is removed. WikianJim 17:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Links to ED not allowed?

Regarding a recent edit description, "→Parodies - links to that site not allowed per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO/Workshop", the document cited there is a workshop page for a proposed arbitration decision, not an actual Wikipedia policy. In fact, the discussion on that page indicates that the concept of banning all links to that site is highly disputed even among the abritrators, and no final decision has yet been reached. Hence, enforcing this nonexistent policy does not make sense. On the other hand, I'm not sure if the ED link in question is suitably notable, so I'm not restoring it. *Dan T.* 14:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Problems with this article

There are a number of problems here. First, most of the references are not suitable, they are not to reliable sources. Second, I can't find any references to this being published in any peer-reviewed journal; has it been? Third, much of the article seems to be original research, largely because there does not seem to be any discussion of the concept in peer-reviewed journals (or at least none which is cited here). I suspect we have another Aetherometry on our hands here. Guy 22:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The subject is not a scientific one so it's not surprising it's not in peer-reviewed journals, but also not particularly relevant. Which references in particular do you have a problem with? We've got one for crank.net, which is a well known source about internet crackpots. One for the Time Cube site itself, an obvious primary source. Bei Daiwei's article was published in the Humanities Journal of Hsuan Chuang University in Taiwan. "time cube @ georgia tech" is a page about Gene Ray's 2005 lecture at Georgia Tech that is used solely to reference the fact that Gene Ray gave a lecture at Georgia Tech in 2005, the only way unreliability would be an issue here is if the entire site is a fabrication. Finally, there is a reference to metamath.org whose URL is failing to load right now. This reference is in support of a statement that there exist proofs that a negative number times a negative number is a positive number, which strikes me as pretty straightforward to re-reference if it comes to that. Bryan 01:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Where is there sufficient material here to earn the subject a seperate article from its creator's? Ray's university lectures certainly aren't in the same vein as a standard lecture series; they are more invitations to public mockery. I know nothing at all about the Humanities Journal or Hsuan Chuang University. There have been concerns raised in the AFD about it [2]. The ability to reference (-1)2=1 is irrelevant to the article. Most of the content of the current article is uncited (existence of widespread parodies, assertions of being "well-known", notability as an internet phenomenon, suspicions of hoax, and so forth). Over a full screen worth of text is quotations or paraphrased quotations from the primary source. Furthermore, WP:NPOV#Undue weight advises that, in the words of Jimbo Wales, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Ray and his handful of advocates (or socks) seems the smallest of possible minorities. Why could this not be smerged to Gene Ray, certainly the appropriate "ancillary article"? Serpent's Choice 06:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm addressing the specific point that the article's references are not to reliable sources. The AfD comment you reference as questioning the reliability of the Humanities journal says, quoted in its entirety: "That's not a serious academic article." I'd like to see a little elabouration on that. The other points you're raising here aren't particularly relevant to the issue of the reliability of these sources, but anyway. You're misinterpreting the "undue weight" clause. Time Cube is the "ancillary article" that Jimbo's referring to as the appropriate place for this extreme minority view; the place this material wouldn't belong is an article on Greenwich Mean Time or somesuch. Personally, I don't see a merge being warranted, but if people really insisted on it I'd say that Gene Ray's article should be merged here instead since Time Cube is all that he's famous for. Bryan 23:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah Time Cube has received massive publicity, been widely discussed, and there is certainly plenty of Time Cube content and related content, with the current Time Cube article only touching the surface thereof. Given the amount of content that is of interest to readers both regarding Gene Ray and Time Cube, with the interest being created by the fascinating nature of the content itself and the fact that the subject matter is rather famous, I can say right now that it's perfectly justified for there to be a Gene Ray article and a Time Cube article. Finally, it's not an "extreme minority view" that the Time Cube website, and the Time Cube theory thereon, are famous and worthy of mention and explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Time Cube Guy (talk • contribs) 02:08, 27 October 2006
To tell you the truth, I had never heard of this subject until I saw it on wikipedia. Even though I believe that knowledge of even the stupidest ideas can be instructive, I would have to err on the cautious side with theories like this one, primarily because they have no other means of propogation. The reason behind peer review (not just the scientific kind)is that general social concensus can sustain or negate the most evanescent ideas. Unfortunately the world wide web is not an adult intellectual peer system based on merit. Fanboys linking, cutting and pasting turn quirky ideologies into a self sustaining fad. I don't think that this is the appropriate forum for that information. I support the Idea that wikipedia require Peer reviewed and published articles to be used as references. I believe that this obscurist propaganda does not deserve its own page for that reason.. I might buy the t-shirt though. --Markjohndaley 12:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Please tell me you're not proposing another VfD!!! I think that as it stands this is an article about an Internet phenomenon (whose sole validation is that it makes people laugh), and thus as worthy of being kept as All your base are belong to us or HA! HA!. No-one is suggesting Time Cube is or should be peer-reviewed -- not us because we know it's barely even pseudo-science, and not Gene Ray because he dismisses the opinions of stupid and evil academics ;-)
P.S. I heard of Time Cube before I heard of Wikipedia! Dave-ros 15:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
To the original comment of it not being published in a scholarly journal... I'm pretty sure any professor who attempted to teach this screed would be shot in outrage by other professors. However, the site has been in the media, and it's a notable internet meme. I think this article needs a tag or a clear reference to the fact that no one besides Gene Ray and anyone batty enough to believe him considers anything Timecube claims as even bordering on reality, though. Something like this:

Nonsense Alert

This subject is complete bollocks. This article describes an internet phenomenon and should not be taken as fact. Sources in this article should be taken with several grains of salt.

Warning: the above template is intended as sarcasm. Humor impaired individuals need not reply.

Well?--ElaragirlTalk|Count 15:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the "Nonsense Alert", but doesn't the whole concept fall into the realm of "Original Research". I've seen far more valid info removed for such reasons, where's the line when it comes to internet phenomenon? IMHO the theory is intentional offensive and inaccurate to garner attention, Trolling isn't notable. There's far more crazy people in the world than words in the dictionary, as wikipedia isn't a dictionary nor should it be a catalog of "popular" insanity. -Burns 15:14, 06 January 2007 (UTC)

Stub

Why is the article better than the stub? JBKramer 12:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

To minimal. I suspect that people comming to this page would like to read something about the subject. I am not opposed to merging this article with Gene Ray and cleaning it op. Actually I don't know why this has not been done, since there were a concensus for it a while back. Tranqulizer 21:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree; that stub is too minimal. We definitely need to retain the current level of detail in the article, if not add more detail. And no, I saw no consensus to merge the articles, nor would I agree with such a consensus if it existed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Time Cube Guy (talk • contribs) 02:08, 27 October 2006

Hail to humanity's mighty glorious Cubic future!!!

The fourth attempt to delete Time Cube from Wikipedia has failed, and the article has been kept. My gratitude extends to all the beneficent Wikipedians who have courageously taken this worthwhile action! You have contributed to the ultimate salvation of humanity. Time Cube is the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Time Cube Guy (talk • contribs)

I say, let's keep this paragraph so everyone visiting the page can see what Time Cube's most vocal proponent has to say. This is known as "giving him enough rope to hang himself by", and will undoubtedly convince anyone who was undecided that Time Cube really is a load of old cobblers ;-) Dave-ros 09:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
please, tranq him, bring him down then medicate him, i really feel sorry for his brain stuck in these crazy loops, hees in a scary place and needs ur help 89.241.30.167 00:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Followers of timecube... (?!)

From the lead paragraph:

Followers of Time Cube are known as "Cubicists" or "Cubics".

Is there any evidence that this statement is correct? Google finds 18 unique pages which contain mentions of "Cubicists"[3], all mirrors of this page, wikipedia based spam pages ("Time cube google toolbar", anyone?) or talk pages on graveyardofthegods. Significantly fewer than some less kind names for "followers of timecube" I searched for. I'm going to take this out unless anyone has any (sensible) objections. Anilocra 17:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone is crazy enough to be considered a "follower" in any rationalist sense, unless it's someone mocking the site for ironic purpose. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 00:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am pretty sure everyone who has followed the evolution of this page agrees that at least one "follower" exist.Tranqulizer 18:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Mass deletion reverted

I have reverted this edit. The section has long been in the article and I have not seen any relevant discussion that explains its removal. Please discuss before making such drastic changes. Kosebamse 07:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Impartiality

Looks like this article needs a "lack of neutrality" or "barely concealed contempt" tag. Yeah, okay, maybe there are only two people in the world who believe Time Cube has any credibility, but the the purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide a place for people to ridicule the beliefs of others, no-matter how crazy they are. -Groveller 09:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


  • The article seems as neutral as possible to me. Nobody actually calls him a "crank" or "crazy nutjob" in first person, all such claims are done with references to outside sources. Considering the bizarre grammar and lack of scientific process or proof, I think the writers of this article did a good job keeping a NPOV considering the unbalanced topic. Prgrmr@wrk 16:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Theory of Everything?

I have serious problems with the use of the term "theory of everything" to describe Time Cube in the first sentence. This has a very specific meaning in physics, and Time Cube doesn't not even begin to dream of coming close to meeting the criteria to be called a scientific theory. It's not even a hypothesis, since those must be based on observation. I would recommend calling it a "belief system." 170.140.8.181 12:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it has all the aspects of "theory of everything" as in "a hypothetical theory of theoretical physics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena." If you visit http://www.cubicao.tk/ you can see how the original subject can be organized into such a theory. You may try to disprove it, but you cannot deny that the theories encompass physical, natural and sociological spheres. Maurog 12:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
You're correct, it does "explain and link together all known physical phenomena," however it's not a theory of everything because IT'S NOT A THEORY! A theory is a hypothesis that has been verified by experimentation. Tulane97 17:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
"A logical explanation of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation." Which part of this description does it not satisfy? Maurog 13:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Which part does it satisfy? "Capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind" certainly doesn't hold since it makes no significant predictions at all, and certainly makes no predictions "of the same kind" (referring to "linking together all known physical phenomena"): what are Time Cube's predictions re the mass of the Higgs Boson? Regarding quantum entaglement? Regarding rotational gravitational effects (that NASA is currently trying to measure)? Regarding galactic rotational velocity curves (i.e. that which we are currently trying to explain via "Dark Matter")? and on and on. "Capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation" Deosn't seem to fit either, since it is clearly unfalsifiable. According to cubicao.tk any deviation from cubic results is "due to chaos", thus any experiment that fails to meet cubic expectations is simply wrong "due to chaos" and doesn't falsify the theory - and that's even presuming you can find anything in the theory to actually try and falsify - see above regarding the paucity of predictions! -- Leland McInnes 15:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I find that Maurog's comments are correct. Time Cube is observable in the natural universe in a vast multitude of diverse manifestations. See, for instance, the articles in the CubicAO "Time Cube in Nature" category, in which there are stated a huge quantity of observable Time Cube properties that exist in the empirical universe. This satisfies the need for testable predictions and for experimental empirical verifiability.
Time Cube is indeed the one true Theory of Everything, and should be described as such in the Time Cube article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.77.138 (talk • contribs)
Forget it. Look it up in the archives, there's already been an endless discussion about this. The trolls like to gnaw on this matter to annoy people with a grasp of science, but there's really no need to repeat it over again. Kosebamse 05:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Kosebamse, yes there has been much discussion about this but then can the discussion really justifiably cease before the entire human population of this planet has accepted Time Cube and averted the oil-depletion global-warming climate-change nuclear-bomb nuclear-waste armageddon? Greenwich mean time is a fraud.
You say that there is an agenda "to annoy people with a grasp of science", and it's probably true that many people have sought to harass, undermine and suppress humans who are noble and of Cubic virtue and wisdom, and who have transcended base mundane vulgar social conformism by understanding that Time Cube corresponds to scientific empirical truth that exists within this 4-corner TimeCube universe (see the CubicAO Time Cube Proof for axiomatic and scientific proof of Time Cube). Who is truly the cave-troll beating the wiki with its stone club? Educators don't know black from white.

Nature's Harmonic TruthCube disclaimer—truly necessary?

is the disclaimer in the external links neccecary? I thought disclaimers were generally redundant because of some small print somewhere.... except for spoilers. Blueaster 05:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

TimeCubeGuy on simple

Another page to keep an eye on: [4] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikianJim (talk • contribs) 17:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Relativity and time cube

From what I've read, time cube can be easily related to relativity (albeit, an extremely watered down and stupid version). There isn't any exact way that you could determine day x has ended and day y has begun, in time cube. That means every observer from a given point will have a different frame of reference as to the beginning and end of a certain day. That's fairly close to to what Einstein predicted with time dialation, if I remember correctly. Popisfizzy 20:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)